Omni-Directional propulsion (ODP)

[jakethesnake]

You Too, read the prior comment and get ready! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

You are only forwarding what Chris has sent you.<br /><br />We'll see when we get more info. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

Hey Wayne what a critic and I thought so much more of you! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Jake, again you're taking it wrong. I stated a fact, you have forwarded some mail. I criticized nothing. I thought more of you too. And still do, but you have been interpreting things in support of you as criticism in other threads, and here all I said was we'll see. What is critical about that? <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[lysol]

Its one thing to be expressing your views and be insulting. And its another to say why you think it wont work and keep the door open to the fact "Never looked at it in that light."<br /><br />So, <br /><br />Mr. Hewatt. Stated your claim. Please prove it. I dont think it would work based on my own knowledge and what ive seen so far. So again.<br /><br />Prove it. And let there be so scrutiny over your work so whoever might be inclined to do so can replicate it.<br /><br />I love the no bull&%$#@! taste of the scientific method.

 

[jakethesnake]

Wayne Why Do you always have to be the level headed one? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

I notice I say what I do for a living??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

Chris Hewatt the inventor (ODP) has told me that in the next day or so they will be posting to their Web site a jpg image of the 2005 working prototype. It will be on the same page as the Adobe documents.<br /><br />I have already been sent this picture and the prototype looks interesting.<br /><br />Link to APRLabs website:<br /><br />http://www.aprlabs.com/descrip.htm<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[billslugg]

Steve<br />I sense a certain sincerity in his post. I think he/she really believes it. <br /><br />What is proposed here is a violation of (what I believe is a law of physics) that says that the center of gravity of a closed system cannot change. If you want to send a rocket to Pluto, you have to spew an amount of matter out the back end at a velocity times mass product that matches the velocity times mass equivalent of the rocket. When the rocket reaches Pluto, the ejected mass (times velocity) is at an equivalent position in the opposite direction. Even if you are operatiing against magnetic fields you are moving an object in the oppostite direction.<br />Can anyone verify/refute this?<br />Bill Slugg <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[aprlabs]

After several days of watching this post I believe I can help with the general understanding of ODP. First of all I would like to say that if I were anyone else other than the persons who have helped build the project, I wouldn't believe the concept either. With that being said the reason I wouldn't believe it is because there have been so many devices in the past and all have produced little if no thrust. The one point that keeps getting addressed in this post and others in other forums is people saying this breaks the known laws of physics. Please go back and read the patent and the descriptions I have written. This is "not" anti-gravity nor does it have anything to do with magnetism or any new technology that will amaze the world. It's exactly the opposite and that's why this is so misunderstood. It's simple in design. The readers are overlooking the obvious. Like a car not running and the mechanic spending three days under the hood until someone who isn't expecting complication checks if the key is in the ignition. This is the situation here. Please go back and look at the patent. The easiest example is if you hold a broom stick and someone grabs the other end and twists it then you are going to move. They gyro provides that twist and the rotation of the stick provides the momentum. Please go back to the basics and look for simplicity and you will understand the device. I would like tot say thanks for all the posts. Even the ones that say negative things. I very much enjoy the idea that there is interest out there for a project I have worked alone on for many years. I won't be able to post again on the site but once and awhile I will look to see if there are any new comments. To everyone who just leaves it at "prove it" my hat's off to you. I agree with that statement and that's what I would ask as well. The latest model will be working by the end of the year and I will release video.<br /><br />Thanks again for the comments and posts<br />

 

[aprlabs]

I apologize for the typos in my previous post.

 

[kyle_baron]

From reading the claims, and seeing the prototype, it appears to be automotively based.<br /><br />1. Engine to power the gyro's.<br />2. Claim 2 locked and unlocked. Sounds like a transmission.<br />3. Claim 4 a brake assembly retards rotation. Revolutions per minute (RPM). A type of Differential?<br />4. Claim 6 multiple speeds.<br /><br />If I had to guess, I would say that the invention is a type of turbocharger, in and of itself. As Steve said there is no movement of the gyro, except against a fixed surface. The fixed surface would have to be the (space) craft itself. We'll patiently have to wait and see. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

I keep hearing how this device defies the laws of physics and I have been talking to Chris Hewatt and he claims that it does not! I agree and I will explain why I think this is so later. First off APRLabs and Chris Hewatt have given a link to his Patent along with all the drawings and descriptions that a modern Patent should typically have, post U.S. HR400. Chris even goes further and provides a picture of a working prototype.<br /><br />I don’t know how many people here actually have a patent but, I would like to educate anyone who doesn’t have one or doesn’t understand the liabilities involved. A patent these days does only one think, and one thing only, if written correctly, it protects a concept of original design! This is a dog eat dog world and the main goal of a Patent at first is to prolong the exclusiveness of an invention and maintain it’s proprietary nature for as long as possible. Typically this is for seventeen years plus the time of the patent is applied for. Also this exclusiveness is not so exclusive anymore, in that as soon as you have applied for a patent it is up for grabs “World Wide” ever since the US has allowed any and all Patents that have been applied for to be viewed by anyone i.e. large corporations or lawless countries which can and will exploit anything they want to, such as let’s say China or a large U.S. corporation willing to move to let’s say China. <br /><br />(Educational links for HR400 provided below):<br /><br /><b> H.R. 400 - 21st Century Patent System Improvement Act <br />(Coble (R) North Carolina and 35 cosponsors) </b> <br /><br />http://www.patentperfect.com/hr400.htm <br /><br />http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/105-1/HR400-r.html <br /><br />And again I say any patent that has been applied for in the U.S. can be viewed “World Wide” such as this one. “World Wid <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Regarding the dryer, it hops across the floor because of friction with the floor not being equal as the load shifts. Mass moves down, it sticks, mass moves up a little dryer has less friction so it moves in the direction of the momentum at that moment.<br /><br />In a frictionless environment, it would not move. It would shake, but have no predominant direction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

Yes, in part you are right about the dryer but what I am trying to show and trying to do myself is developed feel of an enclosed system being able to move in a direction without an external force.<br /><br />If you have for instance an enclosed sphere and inside that sphere something with mass exerts energy against the inside of that sphere in a linear fashion what happens to that energy?<br /><br />Or in describing this in another way if a smaller meteor hit another larger meteor it will drive that meteor in a direction. Now surmise that this force is within or that a hollow enclosed sphere is hit from within does this sphere not move in that direction?<br /><br />I’m not saying that this is what I believe is happening with the devise that is being discussed here. I am just trying to come up with an example of an enclosed system being able to be driven in a direction without an external forces. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

There is no getting around the fact that we are just going to have to wait and see but, I will say that this devise has been put in front of everybody to look at, including a picture of what he says to be the working prototype.<br /><br />Time will tell.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Steve had one very succinct comment.<br /><br />Show us the motion! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

In a way there is external energy being put into it in the form of fuel to drive the system but it does not create any external exhaust. Perpetual motion is not what this is nor does Chris Hewatt describe this devise as being capable of Perpetual motion. If you look Chris Hewatt has posted to this thread and says as much. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

Obviously that is what we have to wait for “Motion” so now we wait and maybe forever! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

K <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>billslugg: the center of gravity of a closed system cannot change. If you want to send a rocket to Pluto, you have to spew an amount of matter out the back end at a velocity times mass product that matches the velocity times mass equivalent of the rocket. When the rocket reaches Pluto, the ejected mass (times velocity) is at an equivalent position in the opposite direction.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>JakeTheSnake: I am just trying to come up with an example of an enclosed system being able to be driven in a direction without an external forces.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />while traveling on bus to a dentist appointment I wanted to take my mind off the visit and I thought over this whole issue and figured out a mechanism that would achieve net center of mass motion of a 'closed system' in free space and I should think that something like that is at the heart of that project<br /><br />'closed' here means closed only as far as the means of propulsion go, not closed to the supply of energy or emission of heat generated (such heat is not going to be the means of propulsion), what I propose is a mechanical system which would start moving and pick up speed in free space even if enclosed inside a box that would only allow for fuel supply and venting off extra heat generated but here we won't worry about those things and simply consider a sealed box that contains a mechanism that will set it in motion while floating in free space<br /><br /><br /><br />of course I am backing off my previous claims but those were made considering only the gyroscopic motion, the propulsion system I have figured out won't functionally depend on the gyro at all and I believe now that the gyro is secondary for that APRLabs project we discuss here as well although it could be used for technological implementation of the device (for the 'locking' of the poles) but its anyone's guess how <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[billslugg]

vanDivX<br /><br />As the weights are rotating, the central shaft will move to and fro, such that the center of mass of the system will remain in the same location. When the balls are both travelling North, the shaft will be moving South. When you lock the shafts, all motion will cease, and the device will remain at its original location. <br /><br />If you had someone standing on the Earth, holding the central shaft so that it would not wobble, and then froze the rotation when both weights were heading in the same direction. and then let go, yes, it would fly off into space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[ascendingsoul]

propulsion is in its very early stages with mandkind and science will evolve as long as mankind takes to it as a beauitful gift and not evil burden

 

[billslugg]

ascendingsoul<br />Welcome to SDC! Yes, we must keep our eyes open to new propulsion methods, but some things have been proven true.<br />One of these is that the center of mass of a system cannot change.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[ascendingsoul]

humans exist in the phisical plane bound with our souls to learn ,love and grow when your talking about masses in the center of systems your speaking of your phyical existance we need to get involved (i mean humanity) with our spiritural existance and all of mankind will grow as one .